iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court's Majority Sides With U.S. Chamber Of Commerce In Over 2/3 Of Cases

Supreme Court

First Posted: 06/10/10 06:47 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP)— A study from a liberal interest group says the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts has a decidedly pro-business tilt, echoing the line Democrats are taking in support of the nomination of Elena Kagan to fill its latest vacancy.

The analysis from the Constitutional Accountability Center finds that the court's five conservative justices side with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at least two-thirds of the time, while the four liberal justices all disagree with the position by the nation's largest business group more than half the time.

The Chamber of Commerce says the analysis is simplistic and notes that many business cases unite the court's conservatives and liberals.

But Doug Kendall, the center's president, says the study confirms what he and many Democrats have been saying, especially since the court voted 5-4 in January to take limits off independent corporate spending in political campaigns.

"The pro-corporate rulings of the activist Roberts court are already a very big story," Kendall says.

President Barack Obama stirred controversy when he criticized the court's campaign finance decision at his State of the Union speech in January, with six justices in attendance in the House chamber.

When Obama nominated Kagan, the current solicitor general, in May, he praised her for defending "the rights of shareholders and ordinary citizens against unscrupulous corporations."

Democratic senators and liberal interest groups have struck similar chords, and the theme is likely to recur at Kagan's hearing beginning in late June.

For its study, the center took a look at 53 cases decided since Justice Samuel Alito joined the court early in 2006 and in which the Chamber of Commerce played a role.

The group won 64 percent of those cases and 71 percent of closely divided cases – those with five-justice majorities, the report said.

Alito has the highest support for the Chamber of Commerce's position, 75 percent overall and 100 percent in the close cases. Justice Anthony Kennedy supported the group's position 67 percent of the time and the other three conservatives, chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were between Alito and Kennedy.

Robin Conrad, who heads the Chamber of Commerce's active litigation division, said the study used "loaded, inflammatory language" that ignored some pertinent facts.

"The vast majority of our cases are decided by lopsided majorities that include what they call the left wing of the court," Conrad said.

She also noted that the study called the court's ruling cutting Exxon Corp.'s damages in the Exxon Valdez spill by 80 percent "ideologically divided." But Conrad said, "Last I read, Justice (David) Souter wrote the majority in that case." Souter, since retired, was generally part of the court's liberal bloc.

"This is a political season and people are being particularly political," she said.

The report also noted that the early evidence suggests that Souter's replacement, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, may be less inclined to support the business position than was Souter. In the seven cases in which she has participated so far, Sotomayor has voted against the Chamber of Commerce's position five times and the court was unanimous in her two pro-business votes, the report said.

___

The planned start of Kagan's confirmation hearing is June 28, also the last day the court is scheduled to issue opinions before breaking for the summer.

There is no fixed date by which the court must issue all its opinions. But to finish by June 28, the justices would have to produce a relative torrent of decisions in 24 cases in the span of 15 days beginning Monday, when the court next sits.

The remaining cases are generally not garden-variety disputes, but among the most important and contentious of the term.

They include:

_McDonald v. City of Chicago, a test of whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms, spelled out in a 2008 ruling that struck down a handgun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, also serves to limit state and city gun control measures.

_Skilling v. U.S., along with Black v. U.S. and Weyhrauch v. U.S., a challenge to the "honest services" fraud law that has become a favored tool of prosecutors in corporate and public corruption cases.

_Christian Legal Society v. Hastings, asking whether a campus group that excludes gay students can be denied official recognition by a public university.

_Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, a free-speech challenge by humanitarian aid organizations to an anti-terror law that bars "material support" to designated terrorist groups.

_John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, a First Amendment dispute over whether the names of petition signers can be kept secret, in this case to preserve the anonymity of people who wanted to repeal a gay rights law in Washington state.

_City of Ontario v. Quon, a test of a public employee's privacy rights involving personal text messages sent on a government pager.

___

The final decision day is of keen interest to the justices, some of whom head abroad for teaching gigs and a bit of R&R.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who studied at Oxford 50 years ago and later married an Englishwoman, is scheduled to receive an honorary degree at Oxford in late June.

Alito will take part in a Penn State University law program in Strasbourg, France, in July, while Kennedy will return to Salzburg, Austria, for his 21st straight year of teaching in the University of the Pacific's summer program abroad.

Read the Constitutional Accountability Center's report:


Chamber Win Statistics -

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON (AP)— A study from a liberal interest group says the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts has a decidedly pro-business tilt, echoing the line Democrats are taking in support of...
WASHINGTON (AP)— A study from a liberal interest group says the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts has a decidedly pro-business tilt, echoing the line Democrats are taking in support of...
Filed by T.J. Ortenzi  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,105
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
06:05 PM on 06/21/2010
After reading a good many posts on this subject, I think my opinion on this is: a 1 term limit for judges on the Federal bench. Lifetime appointment to SCOTUS should have a retirement age of
75. With less time to become 'entrenched' as the rest of the scalawags in Washington, maybe we would see a lot less of this bias and more reason applied.
I think SCOTUS needs to more represent the union than it does now, it looks like a drive by for the North East corridor and the rest of us living outside of that are what? chopped liver?
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
08:38 PM on 06/20/2010
Could we just call this the Corporate Supreme Court (CPS) ? I would be more descriptive of what is going on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
awlff
biker,photographer,dog lover
05:28 PM on 06/19/2010
President Obama convinced me that things could be changed for the better in our economy and our government.And he was the one to do them.Now that our capitalistic plutocracy has revealed itself to be run by corporations paying fortunes to immoral, corrupt, Machiavellian bigots I am forced to write my congressmen and senators and demand changes.Every American with the time to post on line should spend some time contacting your representatives and telling them how enraged we are over the perversion of the Supreme Court,the financial compensations of federal judges by corporations, etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:55 AM on 06/13/2010
I'm ready for a Constitutional Amendment LIMITING the service of Federal Judges inclusive of the Supreme Court. 10 years and you are out- eligible to be appointed to a higher court for a 10 year term- but no reappointment.
09:38 AM on 06/12/2010
Take a look at which justices supported the confiscation of private property to be sold to private enterprise in Kelo v New London. These would be Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg. Breyer and Kennedy.
01:30 AM on 06/11/2010
By the way, how many agnostics or atheists are there on the Supreme Court? Just curious.
04:28 AM on 06/11/2010
Zero - none - nada - zilch. My question is how many of them are honest Americans? Unfortunately same quantity.
11:09 PM on 06/10/2010
I think it was James Taylor who said we would be enslaved by the constitution, and the moneyed class it protects.

Maybe its time for democratically elected Judges. This appointment business is a joke.
photo
roccekt
Want to see a bulldog fly?
11:24 PM on 06/10/2010
At the very least, term limits for these bozos.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
davcrock
11:57 PM on 06/10/2010
Having worked for a federal judge for over 4 years (he mostly slept on his couch), I reached the conclusion that we need both elected federal judges and a term limit of one term of 12 years, which is long enough to get to know the job and would also preserve judicial independence, which was the primary purpose of Madison's idea of granting judges life tenure during good behavior.
11:06 PM on 06/10/2010
I'm thoroughly convinced the law is nothing but a capricious endeavor cloaked with the guise of a fastidious scrutiny, common law is naught but a joke and the danger of the rationale mind, that is so thoroughly coveted within the legal profession, is that one can effectively rationalize pretty much anything, provided one can provide evidence to support the line of thought.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
davcrock
12:03 AM on 06/11/2010
Then you haven't seen good lawyers and judges at work. Find some Learned Hand cases and read them. It's a real joy to see a real judge at work. Or Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, which later became the law. No, done right, law, especially the common law, is one of the great inventions of the human mind and of civilization. Except in the last 75 years we've turned law into politics -- both sides of the political equation -- and are well on our way to totally ruining it, undermining the rule of law in the process. Which threatens the rights that depend on it. That is the danger we face now.
photo
roccekt
Want to see a bulldog fly?
10:52 PM on 06/10/2010
Elections have consequences. We now see the consequences of electing Bush. We will be paying for his desecration of the supreme court for years to come.
09:43 PM on 06/10/2010
This comes as a complete surprise. I'm speechless.
09:39 PM on 06/10/2010
We lost respect for the SCOTUS when they interfered in Florida and voted on a party line to give the Presidency to GW. From that point forward, they will never been seen as Justices. Just political hacks. That will not change until each one of them that was involved in that decision is off the Court. In fact if you give me 10 minutes of information on 95% of the cases before them, I could tell you how they will vote. It's simply party line.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
davcrock
12:06 AM on 06/11/2010
Not Souter. Now he was a good judge. I miss him.
serena1313
Condemnation w/o investigation is hgt of ignorance
09:30 PM on 06/10/2010
The government's responsibility is to protect, not deny the people their rights.

Business interests and the public's interests are not mutually exclusive nor incompatible. They just need to be in balance. However, proponents of capitalism argue enhancing profits is good for the economy thus good for the people, but therein, profit becomes the priority not the people. As a result their immense control over policies and strong influence in the courts have led to a dramatic erosion of social justice, civil rights and public say.

The Roberts court stripped citizens of their right to challenge the (Bush) administration for funding faith-based programmes. Gave police the right to conduct warrantless searches in homes of citizens living off welfare. They have turned back decades of laws: regarding reproductive freedom, efforts to racially integrate schools, First Amendment and privacy rights of high school students, voting laws and ruled tax payer money -- that normally funds schools, pays teachers salaries, builds highways, etc... -- can be allocated to big corporations instead.

Chief Justice Roberts' official opinion: "State taxpayers have no standing ... to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers."

Instead of protecting the people's rights as endowed by our Creator, the Supreme Court is protecting the rights of private enterprise, law enforcement and government powers.

Our future:

Democracy: government by the people

Corpocracy: government by corporations

Kleptocracy: government by corporate criminals

depends a lot more on the SCOTUS than many realize.
Blitzschnell
Left-leaning limericks, ballads and prose
09:25 PM on 06/10/2010
Despite some well-placed progressive nudges
From its pro-business stance the SCOTUS seldom budges
It sure is nice
We followed the Republican's advice
And avoided appointing those activist judges
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
missgramma2005
09:08 PM on 06/10/2010
Gomer Pyle to Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry, RFD:

"WELL SURPRISE SURPRISE ANDY!"

No surprise to me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nicole473
Because Republicans are a threat to this democracy
08:58 PM on 06/10/2010
Until, and unless, we get rid of the 5 conservative SCOTUS SHILLS, we will never be free again. And if anyone believes that we are free now, you are not paying attention.